This article studies the characteristics and meaning of the Gimhae multicultural space through Jean-Luc Nancy’s Inoperative Community(La communauté désoeuvrée) and landscape analysis. We first examine the formation process of the Gimhae multicultural space. Gimhae was a traditional city with many historical relics from the ancient era, traditional markets, and farmland. However, since the 1980s, migrant workers, international students, and marriage migrants have been flowing into Gimhae, giving the historical and traditional city a multicultural character. The landscape of Gimhae’s multicultural space was territorialized within natural and social boundaries. In residential areas, migrants coexisted with the native population without revealing their ethnicity. In the downtown area, we found a unique and hybrid multicultural landscape with a mix of traditional markets, ethnic markets, and historical sites. Here, migrants went about their daily routine of buying goods, enjoying leisure, meeting acquaintances, and exchanging information. This gave Gimhae a new sense of placeness. Especially in the ethnic markets place, exchanges and daily life between natives and migrants were taking place, demonstrating the possibility of peaceful coexistence and a space of hospitality. Next, we analyzed ‘inoperative’ and ‘artificiality’ in the Gimhae multicultural space. Even without policy support or prior regulations, the daily lives of migrants in Gimhae gave the Gimhae Multicultural Space its vitality and expansion. The naturally formed Gimhae multicultural space constituted a unique and hybrid multicultural landscape where natives and migrants coexist, and created a placeness that deviated from the representation of ‘a city of history and tradition’. On the other hand, the authorities and media that characterized Gimhae Old City as a space of crime suppressed the self-generating power of multicultural spaces and created conditions of tension and hatred. The local government’s multicultural sculptures were also not organically integrated into the hybrid multicultural landscape. In conclusion, this article has shown the possibilities of multicultural spaces, the conditions for overcoming hatred and conflict in multicultural societies, and the theoretical basis for exploring the peaceful co-evolution of multiple civilizations through the Gimhae Multicultural Space.

This study examines the characteristics of Choi Han-ki(崔漢綺, 1803-1877)’s "inter-personal perception" research conducted by Professor Lee Young-chan, its social psychological implications, and its significance in establishing indigenous and self-generated sociological theories in Korea. Choi Han-ki’s worldview and perspectives on inter-personal perception from the late Joseon Dynasty have been reinterpreted and excavated through Lee Young-chan’s "inter-personal perception" research, contributing to contemporary Korean perspectives on interpersonal perception. This work holds great significance as it attempts to establish and apply practical indigenous Korean sociological theories alongside the de-Westernization trend in the social sciences. The Korean sociology community has long been engaged in research led by first-generation sociologists aimed at establishing indigenous social theories beyond Western-centric inter-personal perception. However, concrete theoretical achievements have not met expectations, and subsequent research has not systematically followed through. Amidst this context, efforts led by the Oriental Society of Social Philosophy for indigenous sociological theorization have progressed by offering sociological interpretations of classics and presenting an Eastern perspective on various social phenomena. Among these efforts, Lee Young-chan has attempted to theorize sociology based on Confucianism, establishing "Confucian Sociology" and achieving practical Korean theorization and pragmatism through research on Choi Han-ki’s Perspectivism. Choi Han-ki’s perspective research offers a new inter-personal perception and approach within the field of social psychology, particularly in studies concerning inter-personal perception, which receives significant attention from contemporary social psychologists. Inter-personal perception, which deals with the process and outcomes of understanding others in social interactions, is the subject of much interest among current social psychologists. Existing developments in inter-personal perception have been based largely on Western perspectives, lacking in adequately measuring everyday expression and behavior of Koreans. Therefore, in the context of needing to develop a scale for inter-personal perception based on Korean cultural and environmental characteristics, Lee Young-chan’s "Choi Han-ki’s inter-personal perception" holds significant importance. In other words, Choi Han-ki’s person perception presents crucial perspectives and methods missing from contemporary theories of interpersonal perception. Lee Young-chan has laid the groundwork for Choi Han-ki’s philosophical and theoretical system to be used as a practical scale. Moreover, empirical research using the scale for inter-personal perception demonstrates that it can be a meaningful tool for measuring Korean personality traits, self-concepts based on Korean cultural traits, and self-esteem derived from them. Thus, Lee Young-chan’s inter-personal perception research establishes a foundation for empirical studies on Korean interpersonal perception, addressing limitations in contemporary psychology. Additionally, it proposes directions for establishing the identity of indigenous and self-generated theories in Korea and further establishes the unique characteristic of Korean culture, namely, the theory of convergent communication.

The purpose of this paper is to critically examine how the new research field of the sociology of Buddhism was formed in Korea, focusing on the work of Lew, Seung-mu. To accomplish this purpose, the environmental factors surrounding the formation of the sociology of Buddhism in Korea, Lew’s academic world, and some of the issues raised in Buddhist sociology of Buddhism(2010) are reviewed, and finally, Lew’s research achievements in the sociology of Buddhism are evaluated and future tasks are suggested. The main contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows. First, in the Korean sociological community, little foundation had been laid to stimulate the formation of the sociology of Buddhism, whereas a positive atmosphere prevailed in the Buddhist community. However, the discussion in the Buddhist community was limited to the practical aspects of Buddhist thought, which did not lead to a full-fledged sociology of Buddhism. Second, Lew’s research interests shifted from the field of industrial society and labor to the sociology of Buddhism and then expanded to the Maeum(heart) sociology. He continues to deepen his research by interacting with a group of researchers centered on the Association Of East Asian Social Thoughts. He also maintains a broad research interest in contemporary Korean society, centering on the sociology of Buddhism. From this perspective, it can be said that the sociology of Buddhism is the foundation of Lew’s scholarship, at least to date. Third, at the beginning of his work on the sociology of Buddhism, Lew recognized sociology of Buddhism as a discipline that uses sociological methods to study social phenomena related to Buddhism. In this process, the fact that he captured relationship based on the rule of inter-dependently arising(緣起法) as an object of study for the sociology of Buddhism is very important. As a result of continuing to think about this relationship, the concept of sociology of Buddhism was developed as the sociological study of Buddhism from a Buddhist perspective. This definition of the sociology of Buddhism has the limitation of restricting the object of study of the sociology of Buddhism to that which is ‘related to Buddhism’. To overcome this, this paper proposes to redefine the sociology of Buddhism as ‘sociological research based on Buddhist perspectives’. Fourth, although Lew has rigorously discussed that Buddhist teachings, centered on the rule of inter-dependently arising, contain elements that can overcome the limitations of existing sociological methodologies, he has not developed a unique methodology for the sociology of Buddhism. As an alternative, it was pointed out that the Buddhist perspective becomes the core of the methodology of the sociology of Buddhism, and that the theory of Buddhist relationship based on the rule of inter-dependently arising is the core of the Buddhist perspective. I argued that the sociology of Buddhism should recognize and understand social phenomena as relational, constitutive, and process-oriented based on the theory of Buddhist relationship. At the same time, I pointed out that there are limitations in developing research methodologies that empirically enable the relational approach. Fifth, the concept of the inter-dependently-arised(緣起體) devised by Lew for the study of the sociology of Buddhism was found to have limitations in capturing and describing relationship based on the rule of inter-dependently arising. I suggests an alternative definition of the inter-dependently-arised as a network of interdependent relationships to reveal characteristics of the inter-dependently-arised as a fluid entity. Sixth, through Lew’s research on the sociology of Buddhism, the sociology of Buddhism became recognized for its value in the relevant academic field. In addition, Lew has fulfilled his role as the center and leader of a group of researchers in the sociology of Buddhism. Seventh, Lew’s articles on the sociology of Buddhism, which cover a wide range of topics, set the standard for research topics and horizons in the sociology of Buddhism. In addition, the writing style of reviewing Buddhist thought closely related to the topic, criticizing social phenomena based on their contents, and seeking alternatives has become a standard writing style of research in the sociology of Buddhism. Eighth, Lew’s research on the sociology of Buddhism balances both aspects of Buddhism and sociology and does not neglect to discuss social theoretical implications. Through this endeavor, his papers lay the groundwork for constructing a general sociological theory based on Buddhist perspective. Ninth, the challenges for the future development of the sociology of Buddhism include expanding the number of sociology of Buddhism researchers, building an infrastructure to strengthen their research capacity, and creating a social, economic, and academic structure dedicated to the study of the sociology of Buddhism.

Even academia today, referred to as the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, is increasingly interested in integrated academic research such as consensus, convergence, and communication. The limitations of the empirical methodology of the so-called scientific methodology have long been discussed in conjunction with the crisis of theoretical reality suitability in various dimensions. Interest in the crisis of modern civilization and the theoretical crisis have led to various attempts to meet Eastern thought and social science, and many achievements have been drawn. Now, rather than looking at social science discussions and Eastern thought from a confrontational perspective, it is also approaching from a complementary, convergent, and interdisciplinary level. From this oriental ideological perspective, Yoo Seung-moo’s ‘Sociology of the Mind’, which I would like to introduce here, can also be an example of attempting a new search for a theoretical discussion of modern sociology. Yoo Seung-moo’s discussion, which started with a critical perception that mainstream sociology in Korea has strengthened its negative evaluation and image of the traditional Korean way of thinking while relying on academics and theoretical frameworks imported from the West, stands in the process of finding "Korean sociology" through research on social thought operating in the depths of Korean consciousness. His interest skepticism of basic views on Eastern society from a Western perspective, reduced its limitations, and went on to study Buddhism, society, and the framework of Buddhist sociology, and pioneered the first field of "Buddhist sociology" in Korea from the perspective of a Buddhist and social acting approach. Furthermore, Yoo Seung-moo examines the trends of existing research on the mind and the recent trends in emotional sociology in social studies in a critical way. Through this, the search for Korean sociology presents an empirical study of pre-modern traditional society as a typical "society" with the "mind as the stem, to the so-called "study of the mind and society’s companionship." From a psychosocial point of view, it tries to understand the social change of the ‘mind construct’ or the mind construct, and it also leads to a discussion on the relationship between the mind community and the theory of social change. He pays attention to ‘communication’ as the most important mechanism in a device that practically seeks such ‘accompanion with the mind and society’. The argument that communication should be the foundation and mechanism of interaction that mediates and guarantees practice, and that communication should be able to lead to practice for social progress suggests a social science approach and a practical aspect of psychosocial for social progress. Despite various limitations and critical discussions, sociological research on the ‘mind’ has practical potential in the era of globalization. Analysis of the composition of meaning and communication patterns with ‘other people’ through acting logic can become keywords that can interpret communication patterns and minds in the era of globalization. The core of social relations is ‘consideration’. It will be difficult to present this more clearly as a theoretical device to present it as a virtue of a new civil society. This is why there is a need for continuous interest in research on the mind and society as a universal civil society ethics in the era of globalization.

Originally, ‘guek-ki(self-overcoming)’ was the concept of Confucianism and the pursuit of altruism. Today, however, it has changed to mean abstinence or patience. In this study, we concretely investigated what the original meaning and what the changed meaning. And we also found out where it originated. Above all, we identified the social context and function in which the difference and change of the two meanings are located. Currently, it is used in a different sense, and it is accepted to mean abstinence or patience. It originated from the translation of the Greek philosophy of apartheid or the Christian Mortipicatioin into guek-ki. Currently, the East Asian meaning of guek-ki has changed into two patterns. First, as guek-ki as abstinence, it puts physical desire under the control of the mind. Second, it is guek-ki as a goal-oriented behavior. It is common in schools, sports, and companies, and refers to enduring and overcoming current desires for one’s personal goals. Finally, guek-ki became a means to satisfy one’s selfishness from pursuing the goal of altruism. Guek-ki can be said to be a slogan and a device for establishing and spreading capitalist humans and living attitudes in Modern society. The change in the meaning of guek-ki to abstinence can be seen as Westernization, and the change to goal-oriented behavior can be seen as modernization.

The critical target of this article is the foundation of the theory of integration and its political and social ideological effects. This paper critically focuses on the post-historical and absoluteness of the theory of integration-presented as a countermeasure to various crises. Furthermore, as the basis for canonizing the theory of integration in the example, I will systematically doubt the role of morality or ethics, that is, ‘norm’. Integration is standardized, and norms move through integrated functions. Finding the conservatism and oppression of the sanctified norm at the deepest point is the problem consciousness and starting point of this discussion. I doubt all integration theories methodologically from zero (零點), as if Descartes did. And at that point, by focusing on the ideological norms that support the theory of integration, I would like to ‘socialize or historize’ its naturalized existence and function. This article is an attempt to critically dissect the logic of ‘integrated norm’ or ‘normative integration’ from an alternative standpoint. Of course, such work in a broad sense has been attempted earlier by Nietzsche, Freud, and recent Post-structuralist scholars. Among them, Nietzsche’s criticism of the norm, which advocated that another face of the hidden will of power was ‘morality’, and revealed the location of such morality genealogically, is by far the overwhelming. Freud also realistically shows how the Oedipus civilization process suppresses humans through the medium of super-ego. Based on their pioneering work, I would like to summon sociologist N. Luhmann and psychoanalyst and philosopher J. Lacan as theoretical resources to find more realistic alternatives while sharpening the discussion. In addition, as a practical and alternative view of such a theoretical discussion, we will look at the cases of A. Camus’ novels "The Stranger" and "The Plague.“

Social evolutionism has its historical background in the Victorian era (1837-1901) in England. Hobsbawm says that two major trends in thought during this period subordinated philosophy to science. The two currents refer to French positivism and British empiricism. These currents are closely related to Herbert Spencer’s thoughts. Hobsbawm asserted that if one were to choose one science at that time, it could only be the theory of evolution, which became the core of Spence’s thought. The social situation in England during the Victorian period is summarized as follows. The negative aspects of the Industrial Revolution became relatively lighter, and the spread of labor movements and radicalism weakened. Accordingly, the British government is showing its confidence to the world by opening the Crystal Palace (World Expo). Spencer’s first work (『Social Statics』) was published at this time. At this time, England was showing full confidence in social development, and this had a great influence on the consciousness and thoughts of many people. Spencer’s ideas showed signs of decline in England, but his influence expanded in various ways in other European countries and especially in the United States. The purposes of this article are as follows. There are many previous domestic studies on these theories and ideas (especially history, philosophy, political science, etc.). However, in the field of sociology, although social evolution theory is treated as important in various introductory sociology textbooks, there is little information about the overall flow of this theory. There are relatively few articles that discuss critical discussions and the impact on East Asian society. Therefore, a critical review of this will serve as a preliminary to more analytical studies in the future. The structure of the article is as follows. First, we briefly compare the meaning of Social Darwinism emphasized by Spencer with Darwin’s theory of evolution (Chapter 2), and then look at the sociological characteristics of Spencer’s theory (Chapter 3). And in Chapter 4, Social Darwinism at the time was used in Eastern society, especially comparing the impact and characteristics on Korea, China, and Japan. Finally, in the last chapter, we discuss how social evolutionism has been transformed in modern society and how it still exerts a great influence.

This article suggests an event-theoretical interpretation of Niklas Luhmann’s system/environment-difference theory by focusing on the concept of observation. Under the principle of “conditioned co-production,” the combination of the world (state) and observation (event) causes different changes here and there. This idea enables the formation of ‘real world-horizon-emergent world’ and ‘environment-boundary-system’. Observations, events, and operations are related to time and disappear as soon as they occur, so all of this must be triggered by a single event. George Spencer-Brown’s Calculus of Indication, which studied this very point, shows the process of ‘differentiating-indicating’ creating two absolutely separate spaces and creating a time space that is related to but separate from that space. This process is completed by the simultaneous occurrence of entry on the one hand and re-entry of memory, oscillation, and adjustment functions on the other. This perspective deals with theoretical analyzes of the conditions of experience that empirical science focuses on, and is an important result of the analysis. Just two things to mention are as follows: What changes through observation is not the object of observation, but the observer. Observation occurs through a combination of realism, temporality, and sociality.